Monday, January 21, 2008

The Ken programme

Well there was a fair amount of crap in it: most of the material on the congestion charge, the LDA and Chavez struck me as padding, and the drink/Feingold stuff was just smear. And of course we had old foes of Ken, such as Raynsford, lining up to stick the knife in. Also, Martin Bright really shouldn't work as a presenter. He has about as much charisma as a dalek on Mogadon. Still, he did score some real hits. John Ross, Redmond O'Neill, Jude Woodward, Anne Kane and co are deeply unsympathetic characters (special anorak points by the way for those that noticed that an old roneoed set of minutes with their names on also listed "Jane Ashworth (Socialist Organiser)".) The fact that Ken employs them, as a political hit squad, with some of them earning salaries in excess of 120k, is deplorable. If, as alleged, some of them worked for Ken's re-election whilst being paid public funds they should be prosecuted.

That wasn't the only bit that hit home. I happen to think that Ken's position on Al-Qaradawi was within the bounds of the reasonably defensible. Peter Tatchell disagreed with it. He's his own man, and when he spoke of being frozen out for disagreeing with Ken on that issue, he was compelling.

14 Comments:

when he spoke of being frozen out for disagreeing with Ken on that issue, he was compelling.

We happened to see that segment of the programme (wild horses wouldn't make me watch it all the way through).

Spouse: "That's bad - when Peter Tatchell's criticising you for having a black-and-white view of the world..."Self: "I don't think he's saying it should be less black-and-white, just that it's black-and-white in the wrong way."

I actually like Tatchell a lot & think he's one of the good guys - more so than Livingstone, who's shown himself to be a political operator first and a socialist second. But I can't say I think Ken's treatment of him post-Qaradawi was surprising or even particularly excessive.

The congestion charge angle was basically that it has been less effective in reducing congestion than KL claims. Bright's case for this wasn't helped by using a moaning van driver as his main witness, but he was backed up by Tony Travers who usually knows his stuff.

I was looking at data for the number of cars entering C.London at rush hour and that has almost halved since 2000, so if traffic hasn't improved there must be a counter reason. Ken I think was blaming roadworks, which might be right (a section I know well - outside Lords - has been dug up closing one lane every year since 2002 when I started cycling) or perhaps the fact that there has been more buses. But if the latter you really need to compare average speeds and numbers of people entering London, something I'm sure Travers would have done.

Yeah, but if he wasn't a political operator he'd never get anything done, and he wouldn't have survived as long as he has, especially in a job like London mayor. City politics is always going to be a dirty game, where you have to keep all kinds of powerful, but morally dubious, people on board. As for Livingstone - he's a lot better than any of the plausible alternatives. I mean Boris? WTF.

I can imagine that when Peter Tatchell disagrees with you, he's pretty unpleasant to be around. What Tatchell calls being frozen out, might simply be not wanting to see any more of the ranting monomaniac.

I wasn't think of his immediate entourage, but some of the other people he associates with (Jaspers, for example). I wouldn't say its an excuse, so much as an awareness of the limitations. A lot of politicians get corrupted by it sadly, others went into politics for the corruptions (Porter), or for the fame (Blair).

At the end of the day politics is about getting things done, and to do that you have to get enough of the powerful on board. A politician who wants to do good things (and on balance that probably includes Livingstone), is going to have to associate with some pretty unsavoury people to do it. Its this insistence that progressive politicians have to be (ineffective) saints that Harry's Place go in for that pisses me off. Well that and their belief that somewhere like Lebanon is a liberal democracy rather than a rigged, confessional confederacy.

Well don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of compromise and pragmatism, and some of that involves "associating with unsavoury people". But I'm not at all clear how handing out sinecures to your mates at 120k each counts as the sort of compromise that's needed to advance the public good and social justice.